By: Claire Hutchinson

     The Supreme Court of Maryland held that when §10-923 of Maryland’s Courts and Judicial Proceedings (“CJP”) Article applies to a case, the trial court has discretion over what factors to consider when determining whether prior sexual acts may be admitted into the record.  Woodlin v. State, 484 Md. 253, 294–95, 298 A.3d 834, 858 (2023).  The Woodlin court provided non-exhaustive factors that a circuit court may consider when assessing admissibility.  Id. at 263-64, 298 A.3d at 840.  Using these non-exhaustive factors, the court held that the motions judge did not abuse his discretion by admitting Petitioner’s prior sexual assault conviction into evidence.  Id. at 293, 298 A.3d at 857.  Finally, the court held that the Petitioner waived his ability to contest the scope of admission as to the prior conviction when he failed to raise the issue at trial.  Id. at 264, 298 A.3d at 840.

    On a stormy September night, Petitioner John Woodlin (“Woodlin”), a man experiencing homelessness, stayed the night at his daughter’s home.  Woodlin’s daughter had three children, one of whom was A.H., a ten-year-old boy.  At some point between late that evening and early the next morning, Woodlin went upstairs to find A.H. in his underwear.  After briefly play fighting, Woodlin sexually assaulted A.H.  During the assault, Woodlin held his hand over A.H.’s mouth to prevent him from calling out for help.  Woodlin was later arrested and charged with several sexual offenses.

     Prior to trial in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County, the State introduced evidence of Woodlin’s 2010 conviction for a third-degree sexual offense under § 10-923.  At the evidentiary hearing — over Woodlin’s objections — the motions judge determined that the evidence was admissible.  Woodlin filed a motion to reconsider in October 2020, which the court denied.   

     During the trial, Woodlin raised several objections to the admission of his prior conviction; all of which the trial court judge overruled.  A jury then convicted Woodlin of several sexual offenses, including abuse of a minor.  

     Woodlin appealed the admission of his prior conviction to the Appellate Court of Maryland.  The court held that while the trial court is required to consider the similarities between multiple instances of sexually assaultive behavior when determining admissibility, the motions judge did not abuse his discretion by admitting the evidence.  Woodlin then sought review by the Supreme Court of Maryland, which granted certiorari.

     The Supreme Court of Maryland identified four issues to be addressed on appeal:  1) whether there are certain factors that a circuit court is required to consider under CJP § 10-923(e)(4), 2) how those factors are weighed, 3) whether there was abuse of discretion by the motions judge, and 4) whether the motions judge was required limit the scope of the prior conviction.  Woodlin, 484 Md.at 263, 298 A.3d at 840.   

     The Supreme Court of Maryland began its review by explaining that CJP § 10-923 is an exception to the evidentiary rules prohibiting introduction of other crimes or wrongful acts to prove propensity.  Woodlin, 484 Md.at 267, 298 A.3d at 842. Under this section, a defendant’s “sexually assaultive behavior may be admissible”, even if the prior behavior does not result in conviction if certain elements are met.  Id.  Under § 10-923, the State must satisfy four elements: 1) the evidence is offered to rebut allegations that the minor victim lied about the sexual assault or to show lack of consent, 2) “the defendant had the opportunity to confront and cross-examine the witness or witnesses testifying” to the sexual assault, 3) the behavior was proven by “clear and convincing evidence”, and 4) the danger of undue prejudice does not substantially outweigh the probative value.  Id. at 268, 298 A.3d at 842.  If the circuit court finds all four elements are met, the court may admit the evidence.  Id. 

     The court continued its analysis by rejecting the Appellate Court of Maryland’s holding regarding what factors the trial court must consider when determining admissibility of prior sexually assaultive behavior.  Id. at 280, 298 A.3d at 850.  The court held that the language of § 10-923 is unambiguous and, if the General Assembly intended to require specific factors when determining admissibility beyond the four already in the statute, the General Assembly would have added such factors to the statute. Id. at 279-80, 298 A.3d at 849-50. 

     Next, the court provided a list of factors that a circuit court may consider when evaluating the probative value of evidence under §10-923(e).  Woodlin, 484 Md.at 283, 298 A.3d at 851. 

     The first factor is the similarity of the acts.  Woodlin, 485 Md. at 284, 298 A.3d at 852.  If this issue is raised, the court should evaluate the victim’s characteristics and the nature of the defendant’s conduct in both cases.  Id. at 284, 298 A.3d at 852.  The next factor considered is the temporal proximity and any intervening circumstances that could explain a gap in the events.  Id. at 286, 298 A.3d at 853.  The less time that has elapsed between the other assaultive behavior and the issue at hand, the more probative the evidence becomes.  Id.  Any intervening circumstance that could explain a gap between the assaults also weighs on the probative value.  Id. at 286-86, 298 A.3d at 853.  The next factor is the frequency of the sexually assaultive behavior. Id. at 287, 298 A.3d at 854.  The court explained that the higher the frequency, the more probative the evidence.  Id.      

The court then moved onto the factors concerning unfair prejudice, providing two that were deemed as potentially important.  Woodlin,484 Md. at 287-89, 298 A.3d at 854-55.  The first is whether the previous act will overshadow the crime currently charged, and the second is the jury’s knowledge of any previous punishment.  Id. at 287-88, 298 A.3d 854-55.  The rationale for both factors was similar; if a prior act is significantly worse than the one at issue, it could result in a jury determination based on the prior act and not the one at hand.  Id. at 287-88, 298 A.3d at 854.  As to the jury’s knowledge of previous punishment, the court explained that whether there was a prior conviction could impact the jury’s belief the defendant escaped punishment.  Id. at 288-89, 298 A.3d at 854-55. 

     The final list of factors the court noted concerns the admissibility after the elements required by § 10-923(e) are satisfied.  Woodlin,484Md. at 289, 298 A.3d at 855.  The court lists two factors: (1) need, and (2) clarity and manner.  Id. at 289-91, 298 A.3d at 855-56.  The court explained that need is a very difficult factor to address.  Id. at 289-90, 298 A.3d at 855-56.  If the State lacks substantial evidence of the assault in question, the State’s need for the evidence increases, and so does the probative value of the prior act.  Id. at 289-90, 298 A.3d at 855.  However, so too does the risk that the jury will decide the case based on improper reasoning.  Id.  As to the clarity and manner with which the evidence is presented, both are usually encompassed in other evidentiary rules and are decided based on judicial discretion.  Id. at 290-91, 298 A.3d at 856. 

     Finally, the court concluded its analysis by explaining that the motions judge did not abuse his discretion by admitting the evidence of the prior conviction.  Woodlin,484 Md.at 293, 298 A.3d at 857. The court explained that motions judge’s ruling was “well-supported” and that a reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion.  Id.  The court also agreed with the appellate court’s ruling that Woodlin waived his ability to contest the admission of the unredacted transcript after being given ample opportunities to object at trial and failing to do so.  Id. at 293-94, 298 A.3d at 858. 

     Given the exceptional discretion the Supreme Court of Maryland gave circuit court judges to determine admissibility, attorneys must ensure that they formulate strong arguments for exclusion or admission of prior sexual acts. Moving forward, this discretion may lower the bar for victims in some cases; however, there is no guarantee that the bar will not be higher in others. The higher bar may then present another reason victims do not come forward, for fear that their word alone is not strong enough against their abuser.

Claire Hutchinson is a third-year student at the University of Baltimore School of Law and is the Assistant Managing Editor for Law Forum. She received her Bachelor’s Degree in Sociology and Anthropology with a Criminal Justice focus and a minor in Psychology from Towson University. Claire is currently a Law Scholar for Constitutional Law I and is the 3L representative for the Women’s Bar Association at UB. Spring semester, she will be working in the University of Baltimore Mediation Clinic for Families. After graduation in May of 2025, she will be joining Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough as an Associate.